Apparently not, since you persist in posting unsupported claims and wild speculation as fact.
Does this cover Christian belief or not?
- Thread starter charles brough
- Start date
@Slides --
When he shows that he's worthy of my respect by not being so evil, then we'll talk. As things stand I have a moral obligation to disrespect him.
Only if you christians agree to stop using "holy cow", which is derogatory towards hindus, and to give back the christmas day to the pagans. I think that "respect" should go both ways, don't you? Oh, and perhaps we could get an apology from the RCC for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and their explicit help in the Holocaust. That might be nice too.
In other words, show me a deity worthy of my respect and I'll give it. So far I've found none.
Perhaps you're right, but then, that never stopped the Hebrews from being awful towards each other and the rest of those around them, so I think it's bunk. No, benign behavior seems to increase in direct proportion to education, so better and more education(starting by getting rid of this "summer vacation" crap) would be a better way to help us all get along.
You really are ignorant of the history on this aren't you? This "commandment" predates religion by a good two thousand years or more. Not killing your tribe-mates is a good way to stay alive in the wilderness, so genes for in-group altruism(and out-group hostility) would naturally spread very quickly. That religion plays on this built-in, biological mechanism is nothing in it's favor, in fact every successful society in history has had this law, even the "godless" ones. They all merely differed in how they defined "murder".
Again, you betray your own lack of knowledge here. It's not adultery itself that is damaging, as any polyamorous couple will tell you, it's the dishonesty involved in adultery in monogamous relationships that's the problem. And what about polygamous religions/cultures? This commandment effectively invalidates them according to your interpretation.
These two, along with the murder one, predate religion. Such societal norms seem to be built into us at a biological level as every successful society ever has had them. Again, this isn't a point in favor of your religion.
*Looks in the dictionary*
Let's see, covet, covet, covet...ah! Here it is.
Covet
v
1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.
2. to wish for, especially eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted.
So that's actually exactly what it's saying. Your interpretation, helpful though it may be, is in error. If a different word was used then perhaps you'd have been right, but as it stands you're demonstrably wrong.
What a simplistic view of the human condition, and an ignorant one. I mentioned the in-group altruism/out-group hostility mechanism earlier, let's go back to it now. The mechanism in question is the result of genes creating socially inclined machines to ride around in, and it helps to insure that those with the genes for said mechanism will help each other out(thereby assisting in the spread of the genes in question) as well as hurting others who might compete for resources(which also, indirectly, assists in spreading the altruism/hostility genes). That we find this mechanism in every social animal(and even some single celled organisms) is a testament to it's efficiency.
So yes, we have a natural tendency to compete and those competitions tend to be bloody and hostile, however we have equal tendencies for altruism towards those who count among our "in" group. Contrary to popular thought, we don't need a god or soul to explain our altruism, nor is it a uniquely human trait(in fact we seem to practice it less than certain species of insect). Simple biology and natural selection are more than enough to explain this.
It has nothing to do with "giving us the feeling", though some perhaps might state it that way. I want to know why, if homosexuality is such an abomination, he would bother to create it at all, let alone make more than fifty thousand species display homosexual behavior(not just stopping at that either). It makes no logical sense.
And please don't insult my intelligence with that "well this is a fallen world" crap. Even the bible, as fallible as it is, states that god is the author of evil and the creator of all that is. This, of course, doesn't even include the many logical counters to the fallen world shite.
Besides, we appear to have less choice than one would like to believe. A quick glance at recent neuroscience papers reveal that quite quickly.
How do ya figure that?
In The God Delusion, yes, it is deliberately irritating to theists. However his other writings are of a caliber I've not really seen since I found Sagan. I suggest you look into some of his other writings, the two that I recommend the most are Unweaving the Rainbow and The Selfish Gene.
I don't need to disprove him, you need to prove him. The burden of proof still lies with the theist, and it will until they come up with some actual evidence(i.e. something that doesn't already have a more parsimonious explanation).
As things stand now, I can't disprove the existence of acreator, but I can logically rule out some traits that a supposed creator might have. For example, I can rule out omnipotence as being a logically impossible trait, requiring the possessor to be able to do things that, by definition, he is unable to do(create a rock so big he can't lift it, throw a ball so far he can't catch it, etc.). This is but one example of what we atheists can do in an attempt to find a god, if there is one. In the end though, the burden rests with the theists. They're the ones that need to define the god they believe in and present evidence that it exists.
@Knowledge --
If god's science is so much better than ours then why couldn't he stop people riding in iron chariots? Even a high school student can do that these days. Hell, I built a cannon when I was twelve that could have done it(don't ask me where I got the materials, I won't say). I'd say that the god of the bible is pretty pathetic when you really get down to it.
I mean, look at the differences in what we've accomplished. Sure, god may have "created" the first replicators, but then things got too complex and he had to let natural forces take control of them(natural selection). We, on the other hand, have not only begun directly manipulating the course of evolution for many species(in fact we started this some twenty thousand years ago) but we've even gone so far as to create a synthetic genome, something that god never did.
When he shows that he's worthy of my respect by not being so evil, then we'll talk. As things stand I have a moral obligation to disrespect him.
Only if you christians agree to stop using "holy cow", which is derogatory towards hindus, and to give back the christmas day to the pagans. I think that "respect" should go both ways, don't you? Oh, and perhaps we could get an apology from the RCC for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and their explicit help in the Holocaust. That might be nice too.
In other words, show me a deity worthy of my respect and I'll give it. So far I've found none.
Perhaps you're right, but then, that never stopped the Hebrews from being awful towards each other and the rest of those around them, so I think it's bunk. No, benign behavior seems to increase in direct proportion to education, so better and more education(starting by getting rid of this "summer vacation" crap) would be a better way to help us all get along.
You really are ignorant of the history on this aren't you? This "commandment" predates religion by a good two thousand years or more. Not killing your tribe-mates is a good way to stay alive in the wilderness, so genes for in-group altruism(and out-group hostility) would naturally spread very quickly. That religion plays on this built-in, biological mechanism is nothing in it's favor, in fact every successful society in history has had this law, even the "godless" ones. They all merely differed in how they defined "murder".
Again, you betray your own lack of knowledge here. It's not adultery itself that is damaging, as any polyamorous couple will tell you, it's the dishonesty involved in adultery in monogamous relationships that's the problem. And what about polygamous religions/cultures? This commandment effectively invalidates them according to your interpretation.
These two, along with the murder one, predate religion. Such societal norms seem to be built into us at a biological level as every successful society ever has had them. Again, this isn't a point in favor of your religion.
*Looks in the dictionary*
Let's see, covet, covet, covet...ah! Here it is.
Covet
v
1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.
2. to wish for, especially eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted.
So that's actually exactly what it's saying. Your interpretation, helpful though it may be, is in error. If a different word was used then perhaps you'd have been right, but as it stands you're demonstrably wrong.
What a simplistic view of the human condition, and an ignorant one. I mentioned the in-group altruism/out-group hostility mechanism earlier, let's go back to it now. The mechanism in question is the result of genes creating socially inclined machines to ride around in, and it helps to insure that those with the genes for said mechanism will help each other out(thereby assisting in the spread of the genes in question) as well as hurting others who might compete for resources(which also, indirectly, assists in spreading the altruism/hostility genes). That we find this mechanism in every social animal(and even some single celled organisms) is a testament to it's efficiency.
So yes, we have a natural tendency to compete and those competitions tend to be bloody and hostile, however we have equal tendencies for altruism towards those who count among our "in" group. Contrary to popular thought, we don't need a god or soul to explain our altruism, nor is it a uniquely human trait(in fact we seem to practice it less than certain species of insect). Simple biology and natural selection are more than enough to explain this.
It has nothing to do with "giving us the feeling", though some perhaps might state it that way. I want to know why, if homosexuality is such an abomination, he would bother to create it at all, let alone make more than fifty thousand species display homosexual behavior(not just stopping at that either). It makes no logical sense.
And please don't insult my intelligence with that "well this is a fallen world" crap. Even the bible, as fallible as it is, states that god is the author of evil and the creator of all that is. This, of course, doesn't even include the many logical counters to the fallen world shite.
Besides, we appear to have less choice than one would like to believe. A quick glance at recent neuroscience papers reveal that quite quickly.
How do ya figure that?
In The God Delusion, yes, it is deliberately irritating to theists. However his other writings are of a caliber I've not really seen since I found Sagan. I suggest you look into some of his other writings, the two that I recommend the most are Unweaving the Rainbow and The Selfish Gene.
I don't need to disprove him, you need to prove him. The burden of proof still lies with the theist, and it will until they come up with some actual evidence(i.e. something that doesn't already have a more parsimonious explanation).
As things stand now, I can't disprove the existence of acreator, but I can logically rule out some traits that a supposed creator might have. For example, I can rule out omnipotence as being a logically impossible trait, requiring the possessor to be able to do things that, by definition, he is unable to do(create a rock so big he can't lift it, throw a ball so far he can't catch it, etc.). This is but one example of what we atheists can do in an attempt to find a god, if there is one. In the end though, the burden rests with the theists. They're the ones that need to define the god they believe in and present evidence that it exists.
@Knowledge --
If god's science is so much better than ours then why couldn't he stop people riding in iron chariots? Even a high school student can do that these days. Hell, I built a cannon when I was twelve that could have done it(don't ask me where I got the materials, I won't say). I'd say that the god of the bible is pretty pathetic when you really get down to it.
I mean, look at the differences in what we've accomplished. Sure, god may have "created" the first replicators, but then things got too complex and he had to let natural forces take control of them(natural selection). We, on the other hand, have not only begun directly manipulating the course of evolution for many species(in fact we started this some twenty thousand years ago) but we've even gone so far as to create a synthetic genome, something that god never did.
This is quite telling... see, I've found that most people are fairly decent human beings. But if you feel that this describes you, then maybe I should be glad that you found religion.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
What is your definiton of a descent human being? Most people cant even raise their own children correctly.
Not sure what a "descent" person is...
What's your definition of "correctly"?
Just saying that most people I have met in my 50+ years have been good people. Do you agree with S&S that most people are scum?
prove that he is evil.
arguments that don't count:
I asked God for X and he didn't give it to me.
If God was good then he wouldn't let X happen.
If you bring bible verses as evidence, then be sure you read it in context to the rest of the chapter.
are you hindu?
don't you enjoy christmas?
why would you choose these things to argue about? why don't you find something a little more personal and relevant..
yes..but what does respect mean to you personally?
how do ppl in your life 'show' you respect? (emphasis to distinguish between lipservice and actual display of respect)
ok.. i do not have ANY problems with you picking on the RCC, i believe they not only dropped the ball, but they stepped on it and popped it..
keep in mind that believers are ppl too..religion does not circumvent our humanity, they are just as screwed up as the rest of us..religion just makes it easier to play 'perfect'.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Not sure what a "descent" person is...
What's your definition of "correctly"?
Just saying that most people I have met in my 50+ years have been good people. Do you agree with S&S that most people are scum?
No, but I would say 90% of people have not realized their true potential. Just judging by walking down the street.
This displays the basic foundational difference between the minds of conservatives and liberals. And the more extreme one is the more liberal or conservative they will be.
Of course not all liberals are atheist and not all conservatives are religious so i guess this point is independent of the atheist/theist issue.
Liberals believe that all humans are basically good and if anyone is a dick there is a nice person inside just trying to break out if only you would be nice enough to them.
Conservatives believe there are a lot of evil scumbags in this world with no compassion and could not care less for others. They are always on guard just in case the next person that crosses their path is one.
Of course a lot of people fall some where in between the extremes.
And as we know the younger a person the more they will be liberal in their life spectrum worldview but once they grow older they start to move toward the conservative. That’s why older voting populations tend to vote conservative. As the population of the western world has aged, politics has shifted toward the conservative in all political parties.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
You mean like how Pope John Paul II did on March 13, 2000?
And I'll admit that we stole Christmas from the pagans. But they went right back and stole Easter from us. Don't even try to admit otherwise. Easter is celebrated on the Sunday after Passover. Has been since about 200CE. The name, the traditions of bunnies and chocolate and celebrations, all of it originated with the Germanic pagans who decided to combine the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ with their vernal equinox celebration, in which they worshipped the goddess Aster, a fertility goddess.
And, even though it invokes Godwin's Law, can I get an apology from atheists for the Holocaust?
Last edited:
SlidesandScaffolds
Registered Member
I would like to make a note that I was writing in anger that day. I was disputing the OP and trying to clarify what the belief was. I did it in anger/frustration and some of the content is admittedly course. I will leave the original post I made alone as a reminder to myself what happens when rage gets the better of me. That being said, here is a response:
1) Please expand on why you think He is evil, and we will discuss.
2) I don't use the term "holy cow" because in the situations where the term would arise, I prefer "holy shit", or "fucking hell", or "what the hell is that, and if someone doesn't explain in five minutes I'm throwing it out the fucking window", or some variation. Also, do you use the terms "OMG", "Go to hell", "For christs'sake", or "goddamn"? If you do, I may not like it, but I'm not going to stop you from doing it. What about "fag", "that's so gay", "douchebag", or "whore"? Homosexuals have their own lives to live and shouldn't have their sexuality used as derogatory statements either. "Douchebag" implies that there is something wrong with a woman who wants to keep herself clean and the tools she uses to do it. "Whore" is another term for prostitute, and at least they're working (I'm not implying you don't, but that the job is still a job).
Also, not all Christians are Catholic, and the Catholics did apologize for the atrocities set forth by humans who held too much power.
3) I don't speak for the Jews, and I don't assume that they were all awful to each other either. I do agree that there needs to be more funding for education in schools. As an American, I feel our country has become obsessed with standardized tests and forgotten that the information itself is important. That is my opinion though.
4) I never said anything about the ideas behind them not being around before that time. I was only stating that the rules laid down aren't irrelevant. If anything, your argument supports mine. I think that personally, I'd be a little embarrassed if an all powerful being had to come down and remind me what I knew when I was less intelligent. And once again, I was trying to clarify some things about my faith. I find murder to be extremely relevant because if we were to disregard it, we'd be in trouble. Let it also be noted, that I was responding to the OP statement. Not to you. You seem to have taken my response too personally.
5) "You shall not commit adultery. Because vows and commitments are sacred. If you don't like your relationship, get out of it. Don't drag anyone else's fragile psyches through the mud with you." Adultery is infidelity. You can be unfaithful in a poly-amorous relationship by lying about the relations you have. I never said it was just about the sex. I was merely stating how it is a relevant sin. Also, poly-amorous relationships do have vows/commitments made, and there can be physical infidelity as well. I do still personally believe that if you can't keep up with the rules of either relationship, it is better to leave it rather than hurt multiple people later.
Let's say Bob and Trisha are open to having Todd and Amy join in the loving relationship. That's fine. That's laid out and clear. Everyone is happy. However, when Bob decides he's going to add Lizzie to the mix, unbeknownst to everyone else, I guarantee that's going to sting like a bitch (excuse the phrase).
Don't assume that because I'm a Christian, I am ignorant to the ways of the world. While I might not practice it anymore, for a long time I was part of LGBT. There are problems with adultery on all sides.
6) My post was never about converting you or anyone else. Again, it was in response to the OP. This was a clarification of the actual beliefs. It was never about making or breaking points. Again, I was arguing Dawkins, not trying to convert you.
7) Please read the whole of the law "You shall not covet your neighbor's belongings." You shall not want want/desire/wish greedily for your neighbor's belongings. You can desire things that are like or even probably an identical copy of your neighbor's things. But specifically, those items which are already owned and worked hard for by your neighbor are not fair game for a person. If you want an identical copy, go and work for said copy. However, no matter how hard you work, unless your neighbor of his own free will chooses to give it to you, you will not have their life or their personal belongings (this is still more towards items, because they still probably couldn't give you their life to live).
8) Yes, I did simplify, much in the same way Dawkins simplified. I was making a point, but seeing how I did set the tone of the response in anger, I can see how it could be missed.
9) The statement was made "to those who harp about". You also assume that I think it's an abomination. I don't. I do however feel that it is a choice you can make. Is it a difficult choice to make? Most certainly. Maybe this is different because my brain is hardwired "bisexual", so the choice is a little easier. I don't know. I would love to discuss it with you if you can enlighten me on it. For now, we'll put this under the "things to rethink" category of this whole post.
10) How do I figure? Because when someone's self esteem is already in question, the knowledge of their partner choosing porn over them creates the same pain in their minds as in a relationship where one partner chooses to physically cheat. Everyone's mind works differently, but for some, the not so harmful can be just as impacting. That's the other thing. I said "can be". I didn't say the case was the same for all.
11) Once more, in case the point wasn't made multiple times, I was not trying to convert/prove anything. I was merely arguing the "not" option of the OP. I'm pretty sure I stated that somewhere else in this thread, but I could be wrong.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I stopped reading here. Learn to be selfless.
Actually, this does bring up an interesting question: What do you consider to be evil, Arioch? Most of the things that I consider to be "evil" in this world are acts committed by man (or woman; let's not be sexist about this).
If you are also referring to natural disasters, disease, and other such things, where is the evil in nature? As near as I can tell, animals, plants, insects, bacteria, and viruses don't exactly think evil thoughts (with the possible exception of dolphins; just a hypothesis, no supporting evidence), but are beholden to instincts and learned behaviors. One could argue that we are as well, but I'd like to think that we possess a little something that separates us from them, that thing being consciousness and higher reasoning faculties that allow us to choose not to follow our instincts, and therefore allow us to commit direct violations of another's inherent freedoms.
Natural disasters, likewise, cannot be considered evil, as they are just a part of how our world works. G-d doesn't sit upstairs and throw hurricanes at the East Coast of America to punish the Democratic White House (no matter what anyone says). If He's going to send a natural disaster to "punish the wicked and wipe the earth clean," I would imagine that it would more resemble the Flood of myth than any single, localized event. At least then He's guaranteed to hit everyone.
So, if the only evil in the universe is committed by man (or woman), and according to theism G-d gave us the right to choose and according to deism G-d left us alone, how is He evil, precisely?
If you are also referring to natural disasters, disease, and other such things, where is the evil in nature? As near as I can tell, animals, plants, insects, bacteria, and viruses don't exactly think evil thoughts (with the possible exception of dolphins; just a hypothesis, no supporting evidence), but are beholden to instincts and learned behaviors. One could argue that we are as well, but I'd like to think that we possess a little something that separates us from them, that thing being consciousness and higher reasoning faculties that allow us to choose not to follow our instincts, and therefore allow us to commit direct violations of another's inherent freedoms.
Natural disasters, likewise, cannot be considered evil, as they are just a part of how our world works. G-d doesn't sit upstairs and throw hurricanes at the East Coast of America to punish the Democratic White House (no matter what anyone says). If He's going to send a natural disaster to "punish the wicked and wipe the earth clean," I would imagine that it would more resemble the Flood of myth than any single, localized event. At least then He's guaranteed to hit everyone.
So, if the only evil in the universe is committed by man (or woman), and according to theism G-d gave us the right to choose and according to deism G-d left us alone, how is He evil, precisely?
charles brough
Registered Senior Member
Yes, exactly! There is a big difference, and the Old Book has caused society endless confusion by failing to make that clear. "Murder" is an act caused by or apart of an abuse at the expense of other(s). To kill, however, can be accidental, done in self-defense, a tool of justice, and/or a means of defending one's territory. Killing is essential and has always characterized humanity, just as it has the rest of the natural world.
You make good points, but I emplore you to please stop treating your fellow Christian human beings with insults. Yes, they are ignorant, but what is the point of trying to educate them if we show contempt for them and turn them against us? If not to educate them, are we here just to let of steam on them instead of our wifes? (Myself, I'm no longer married!) :bugeye:
charles brough
Registered Senior Member
Good question! Does everyone remember how ex-Pres. Bush used the term widely in his foreign policy statements? He was playing to his Fundamentalist constituents. The religionists love the word.
So why does any secular/science individual ever use it? It is just an old-religion world or concept. "Evil" is only what is caused or influenced by "Satan." :mufc: Thus, it is meaningless. Other such meaningless old-religion terms are "holy," "glory," "sin," etc.
Some people have criminal, selfish, and/or bad intentions and perform acts that are destructive to society, but we evolved as social beings and it is our innate social nature that forms the base of our moral/ethical systems. We were not created or born "sinful." We evolved as social beings and behave in a way natural to our species and similar to that of all other life on Earth.
He excluded the 'mind'.
Gday,
Oh dear - there's the problem.
You don't understand abiogenesis or evolution at all.
Life did NOT start with the first cell at all.
Creationists always get that wrong.
K.
Oh dear - there's the problem.
You don't understand abiogenesis or evolution at all.
Life did NOT start with the first cell at all.
Creationists always get that wrong.
K.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Then some sort of chemical reaction? Shot in the dark, but a reaction needs a catalyst, right?